Profitt v. Canez

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Profitt v. Canez

575 P.2d 1261, 118 Ariz. 235, 1977 Ariz. App. LEXIS 831

CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona

DecidedDecember 16, 1977

Docket2 CA-CIV 2518

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 575 P.2d 1261 (Profitt v. Canez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Profitt v. Canez, 575 P.2d 1261, 118 Ariz. 235, 1977 Ariz. App. LEXIS 831 (Ark. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

STEVENS, Judge, Retired:

This case was decided in the Superior Court by a judgment which granted the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. The motion urged that the *236 plaintiff’s complaint did not state a claim for relief. In our reviéw on this appeal, we must view the complaint filed in the Superi- or Court in the light most favorable to stating a claim for relief. The appellant was the Superior Court plaintiff and the appellees were the Superior Court defendants. They will be referred to herein as they appeared in the Superior Court. The facts stated herein are the facts stated in the complaint.

The plaintiff’s daughter received injuries in a two-car accident, which injuries caused her death. The suit was for damages by reason of her death. The driver of the other car was not joined as a party defendant. The defendants owned and operated an establishment selling alcoholic beverages. On the day of the two-car collision and shortly, before the collision, the defendants furnished and sold alcoholic beverages to the driver, who was already in an intoxicated condition. He left the defendants’ place of business in an intoxicated condition and was intoxicated at the time of the collision. The intoxication was a condition which was a contributing factor in the cause of the collision and resulting death.

The minute entry ruling granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings succinctly states the basis of the ruling as follows:

“The Court Finds that the State of Arizona has no ‘dramshop’ statutes or similar statutes under which to hold the Defendants liable under the circumstances.”

We agree with the trial court’s holding and affirm.

Whether Arizona needs a dram-shop law is a matter for the legislature to decide. At least, since Pratt v. Daly, 55 Ariz. 535, 104 P.2d 147 (1940), and Collier v. Stamatis, 63 Ariz. 285, 162 P.2d 125 (1945), there has been an awareness of the absence of such a law. Both divisions of this Court have held that Arizona does not have a dramshop law. See Pierce v. Lopez, 16 Ariz.App. 54, 490 P.2d 1182 (1971), and Thompson v. Bryson, 19 Ariz.App. 134, 505 P.2d 572 (1973). 2

The judgment of dismissal is affirmed.

NELSON, P. J., Department A, and HAIRE, J., concur.

NOTE: This cause was decided by the Judges of Division One as authorized by A.R.S. § 12-120 subsection (E).

2

. Many matters are urged by the appellant which do not appear to have been presented to the trial court. This material might be persuasive to a legislative body.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

STEVENS, Judge, Retired:

This case was decided in the Superior Court by a judgment which granted the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. The motion urged that the *236 plaintiff’s complaint did not state a claim for relief. In our reviéw on this appeal, we must view the complaint filed in the Superi- or Court in the light most favorable to stating a claim for relief. The appellant was the Superior Court plaintiff and the appellees were the Superior Court defendants. They will be referred to herein as they appeared in the Superior Court. The facts stated herein are the facts stated in the complaint.

The plaintiff’s daughter received injuries in a two-car accident, which injuries caused her death. The suit was for damages by reason of her death. The driver of the other car was not joined as a party defendant. The defendants owned and operated an establishment selling alcoholic beverages. On the day of the two-car collision and shortly, before the collision, the defendants furnished and sold alcoholic beverages to the driver, who was already in an intoxicated condition. He left the defendants’ place of business in an intoxicated condition and was intoxicated at the time of the collision. The intoxication was a condition which was a contributing factor in the cause of the collision and resulting death.

The minute entry ruling granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings succinctly states the basis of the ruling as follows:

“The Court Finds that the State of Arizona has no ‘dramshop’ statutes or similar statutes under which to hold the Defendants liable under the circumstances.”

We agree with the trial court’s holding and affirm.

Whether Arizona needs a dram-shop law is a matter for the legislature to decide. At least, since Pratt v. Daly, 55 Ariz. 535, 104 P.2d 147 (1940), and Collier v. Stamatis, 63 Ariz. 285, 162 P.2d 125 (1945), there has been an awareness of the absence of such a law. Both divisions of this Court have held that Arizona does not have a dramshop law. See Pierce v. Lopez, 16 Ariz.App. 54, 490 P.2d 1182 (1971), and Thompson v. Bryson, 19 Ariz.App. 134, 505 P.2d 572 (1973). 2

The judgment of dismissal is affirmed.

NELSON, P. J., Department A, and HAIRE, J., concur.

NOTE: This cause was decided by the Judges of Division One as authorized by A.R.S. § 12-120 subsection (E).

2

. Many matters are urged by the appellant which do not appear to have been presented to the trial court. This material might be persuasive to a legislative body.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

575 P.2d 1261, 118 Ariz. 235, 1977 Ariz. App. LEXIS 831, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/profitt-v-canez-arizctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack